| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
 Posted -
15/12/2007
:
07:03
|
I thought it might be a good thing to have a topic devoted to this important subject.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
AiredalePete
New Member
29 Posts
|
|
Posted - 20/12/2009 : 20:37
So what's killing the corals? - Stanley
What it means
Loaiciga concludes that "on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2." Hence, any changes that might occur would have little to no negative biological ramifications, as we have reported repeatedly in Journal Reviews archived under Coral Reefs (Calcification) in our Subject Index.
Source
The Ocean Acidification Fiction
Edited by - AiredalePete on 20/12/2009 8:41:15 PM
Insanity doesn't run in my family.
It gallops.  |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 21/12/2009 : 06:39
There is enough concensus on the dangers of changes in the climate of the planet to convince governments of the need to do something about it. Hence the Copenhagen conference. In the worst economic climate for over 100 years hard money is being put on the table to reduce pollution. This is fact, not conjecture. I hold the position that this is the right course, assume worst case and attempt to improve on it. This can't do any harm, only good. Arguing for and against any particular facet of the complicated science is futile. Much of it is generated by the fear that at long last the economic imbalance between the West and the rest of the world is changing, and about time!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
AiredalePete
New Member
29 Posts
|
|
Posted - 21/12/2009 : 07:23
This can't do any harm, only good. - Stanley
I can only imagine that you work for a government, Stanley.
Whilst it is being accepted by all and sundry that:
1. Global warming is being caused by excessive levels of carbon dioxide and
2. Human beings are responsible for it...
...we will have to put up with higher and higher taxes on the things that produce carbon dioxide.
This blind faith in government policy is very endearing - at least it is to the government - but some of us can spot a scam when we see one.
If you drive a car, you will discover the harm it can do next time you fill up your tank.
Insanity doesn't run in my family.
It gallops. |
Bruff
|
Posted - 21/12/2009 : 09:32
''MICROMOLES! How much smaller can they go?''
What's the point of this statement?
''Bear in mind - in real life the CO2 level is still only 0.03 % of the atmosphere.''
.......and this one too?
They suggest that because we have small amounts of something, or that we measure something in small units, then we can cope with bigger changes. Is this the point? I hope not. I could increase some things in your body, or in the atmosphere, or in water, by parts per billion or nanomoles, and well, you'd be dead.
It's a very odd argument, so I'm asssuming I've misunderstood something here.
Still, at least after all the to-ing and fro-ing we've got to what really concerns Pete in all of this. He might have to pay more tax due to a malign politico-scientific con-trick.
Time for the tin foil hat............
Richard Broughton
|
frankwilk
|
Posted - 21/12/2009 : 11:22
This week we commenced waste food recycling.
Where has the Council/ Goverment been all this time dumping it in Landfill. Now I am told if I place the wrong thing in the wrong bin I may be prosecuted. If that is the case I want to see all the Officals who have let us all down, for so long be prosecuted to.
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy |
tripps
|
Posted - 21/12/2009 : 15:07
What's the point of this statement?
''Bear in mind - in real life the CO2 level is still only 0.03 % of the atmosphere.''
I think you're using this out of context. The point was to show that the "experimenr" on Newsnight did not replicate real atmospheric conditions, and that their concentration of CO2 was probably hundreds of times more than in nature, thus invalidating the whole thing.
It's hard to get to the truth about any of this, the scientific quotes on both sides seem quite convincing. to a non scientist. It does seem to polarising into a left/right political thing though,
Back to flippant mode - thank goodness we are getting a warmer world, I couldn't stand it much colder than it is today! By the way - can you explain your reference to tin foil hats? Do they keep you cool in hot weather? If so I'll try one.
|
Tizer
|
Posted - 21/12/2009 : 16:20
Tripps, I think the best way to read that experiment is that it was valid in being a simple demonstration that air enriched with CO2 absorbs more heat radiation (infra-red) than ordinary air. As we discussed above, it needs a more rigorous experiment to prove it for a real life situation. Trouble is, to do that you would be forced to use sophisticated scientitic instruments that would merely churn out numbers or graphs and the public won't be able to make head or tail of it. They are used to being shown fun demos instead! This is the fix we are all in, it needs preferably a knowledge of some aspects of science to understand the concepts and have enough confidence to accept the arguments, or at the least a willingness to trust the scientists.
On the left/right polarisation, I agree. The right wing of the Australian `Liberal Party' (equivalent of our conservatives) has thrown out leader Malcolm Turnbull and replace him with a sceptic because Turnbull brought in a carbon emissions trading scheme.
Tin foil hats - do you remember Pluggy's picture in the `UFO Sighting' thread? If not, see here:
http://www.pluggy.me.uk/tinfoilhat.jpg
|
tripps
|
Posted - 21/12/2009 : 16:50
"a willingness to trust the scientists".
When Uri Geller first amazed us all with his spoon bending, scientists investigated, and could not explain it. It would have been better for Paul Daniels to have looked into the matter. I am getting nowhere with this, so (once again) I shall try to bail out. I leave with the thought that it does not take a PhD in microbiology to know when a piece of fish is off. It smells!
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 22/12/2009 : 09:08
Airedale Pete. Your response to a perfectly sensible and balanced opinion is disgraceful and proves that you are not giving any consideration to other people's views. You have missed the point that I was making, argument against action based on partial knowledge is worse than useless, action on worst case can't do anything but good. Reduction of emissions is a worthy aim whether it is a cause of global warming or not. This is not supporting the goverment but good sense. Take off your blinkers and give some thought to opinions even if they are contrary to yours. However, how anyone can say that advocating reduction of pollution is evidence of blind adherence to government policy beats me.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Bruff
|
Posted - 22/12/2009 : 11:29
Stanley - tend to agree.
I would argue though that argument based on partial knowledge (if I've understood your contention there correctly) is not 'worse than useless', rather it is sometimes vital. In effect it is argument for precaution, and when I think about precautionary approaches, I do so because I want to be approximately right rather than precisely wrong. Existing knowledge may be partial, but the consequences of inaction are so serious, some action must be taken.
The debate on climate change and associated global warming, is not really at heart one of science. It is informed by science, but given the latency it is very much about individual/societal/global decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. We are not well-equipped to deal with this.
Richard Broughton
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 22/12/2009 : 15:46
You are right Richard, what I should have said was 'argument against action'. That was my sense and it would have been clearer. I shall alter it.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
frankwilk
|
Posted - 22/12/2009 : 16:52
I am coming to the conclusion that Climate Change and the topic on the Banks are very very closley related. Manufacturing slowed down because no one wanted the products we built any longer. Japanese Koreans etc made Cheaper products of similar Quality for less money hence the exodus from B Leyland to Datsun. So you had this huge chunk of Civilisation manufacturing these things who now had money to spend on the products they were building. Then they all had one each some even had two
So what next Houses yes cracked it, sorry no. Not enough money to purchase them. Print money said the bankers, No probs said the Goverment so they printed money.
Hey said the Indians and the Chinese we won't some of this to.
Ah but think of Climate Change said the bankers we can't said the Chinese you see the political system we have is Direct Control of the peole if we don't give them what you have they will revolt. Then we will be strung up so we are not voting for that in Copenhagen. So that's why that little outing failed. Print more money said Godron we can't said the banker we don't have anything to support it. Remember that old fashioned thing called Gold well Godron sold it all.
So what shall we do said the World Leaders we can let Iran have a nuclear bomb, wipe out 3/4 of the population and start all over again. Good idea said everyone around the table lets do it.
to be continued
Frank Wilkinson Once Navy Always Navy |
AiredalePete
New Member
29 Posts
|
|
Posted - 22/12/2009 : 18:55
Airedale Pete. Your response to a perfectly sensible and balanced opinion is disgraceful and proves that you are not giving any consideration to other people's views. You have missed the point that I was making, argument against action based on partial knowledge is worse than useless, action on worst case can't do anything but good. Reduction of emissions is a worthy aim whether it is a cause of global warming or not. This is not supporting the goverment but good sense. Take off your blinkers and give some thought to opinions even if they are contrary to yours. However, how anyone can say that advocating reduction of pollution is evidence of blind adherence to government policy beats me. - Stanley
Stanley, I don't understand how you can say that I am not 'giving consideration to other people's views' when it is other people's views that I am challenging. Of course I am giving consideration to them.
You claim that 'Argument against action based on partial knowledge is worse than useless'. Is it really? Shouldn't this read, 'Action based on partial knowledge could be worse than useless'?
Neither you nor I are being given all of the information on which to make a decision. The information you are being given and the information I am being given comes from equally unreliable sources. You say the earth is heating up. I say it is heating up in the context of a general trend of cooling. You say it is caused by carbon dioxide. I say it is probably caused by water vapour. You say that human beings are causing it and I say that we are not. It's a straight forward difference of opinion.
There is nothing 'disgraceful' about that. Not on a discussion board.
Reducing emissions may or may not have a measurable effect on the current increase in global temperature. I believe that any reduction would have negligible, if any effect. That forms the total extent of any benefit.
In order to achieve a reduction in emissions, governments are levying higher taxes on populations. These higher taxes are disproportionate to the amount of benefit achievable.
Still, at least after all the to-ing and fro-ing we've got to what really concerns Pete in all of this. He might have to pay more tax due to a malign politico-scientific con-trick. - Bruff
Yes, Bruff and so might you have to pay higher taxes.
Stanley accuses me of wearing 'blinkers' but how blinkered are the people who naiively accept that they will have to pay through the nose for a fairytale perpetuated by a bunch of politicians, who have already proved that they can't be trusted with something as simple as expense claims?
Insanity doesn't run in my family.
It gallops. |
HerbSG
|
Posted - 23/12/2009 : 04:59
Here we go again, can we please have a discussion..even a debate..without using words such as disgraceful and blinkers in reference to individual opinions. If we are not careful people will just not bother to comment at all, then the site simply becomes a diary or journal of the opinions of one or two individuals. It is so easy to join in discussions and say things like "I don't agree with your point for the following reasons" that will sometimes change ones point of view, the other way it simply promotes an antagonistic attitude.
HERB
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 23/12/2009 : 05:10
Herb, if I think something is disgraceful I shall say so but you're right in that there isn't a lot of sense in the thread at the moment. The whole point about my reaction is that evry point made by me was refuted. I'll say it one more time and then I'll wait 'til sense creeps in. Doing good things about pollution is good even if the reasons for doing it are wrong. Not doing something good because there is the least doubt about the science is bad policy. Reducing emissions is good. That's my last word on that thread.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING
